DanSmedra wrote: > Not "anger," annoyance with the trolling. Julf isn't interested in > "discussing audio issues," he's an authority in his own mind, knows > EVERYTHING, and KNOWS with absolute certainty that MQA is gimmicky > technology, "quackery," "pixie dust," a "unicorn fart."
You are clearly not familiar with the concept of rational debate. > His signature shows he has an 'ax to grind'. If my signature offends you, I guess it shows that you view any comment on the audiophile belief system and marketplace as a personal insult. > His goal is clearly to insult those who may have something favorable to > say about MQA. See above - the way you take any criticism of MQA as an insult is interesting. > Not. My question wasn't generalized "why [any] one would care," but > specifically "-Why would I even care?"- And why would we care if you care or not? :) > To date, MQA is solely relevant to the streaming world as it claims a > form of lossless compression of larger studio master files, and thus > better SQ for streaming. And thus it is a solution to a non-problem. We are able to stream high-quality movies, with much higher data rates than "hi-res" FLAC - there is no reason to need a more efficient compression method for a fringe audience. > Are subjective opinions of aesthetic value permitted in these forums or > not? They really belong down in the audiophile subsection, and should preferably be clearly flagged as personal subjective impressions. > Julf knew before he asked his "technical question" that ONLY a TIDAL > employee would have knowledge regarding whether similar or dissimilar > source files were used in creating MQA files. No, I really live in hope of finding recordings where the source of the "non-MQA" and MQA versions is the same . Perhaps the 2L samples are, perhaps not. But the absence of such test material is perhaps also telling. > In any normal discussion, there's no need to insult other's subjective > opinion. You seem to equate "questioning the underlying causes" with "insult". > Julf's agenda here is clearly not to "discuss audio issues," but rather > to disparage both what he considers "quackery" along with those persons > who don't share his opinion. Ah! Thanks for reminding me, I had completely forgotten what it was! Right... How about taking this down to the audiophile section where it belongs? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106754 _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list Touch@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
